Ripple Vs SEC: Is SEC Deliberately Trying To Delay Ripple Lawsuit Rulings?

XRP Vs SEC Ripple lawsuit has been a long and messy legal battle since December 2020. While SEC’s approach in the case against XRP has been confusing and questionable. In the latest development, SEC has filed a request to file Sur-Sur-Reply. Many believe that it is just some of the tactics used by the SEC to delay the case.

What is SEC’s Sur-sur-reply about?

In the first Sur-Reply, Ripple lawyers mentioned that this is the very first case in which the SEC has ever brought an enforcement action against a company or its individual executives overselling an established digital asset.

To its reply, SEC in new Sur-Sur-Reply has talked about Motion to Strike, citing SEC vs LBRY decision in which New Hampshire federal judge granted judgment on the pleadings on an unrelated selective enforcement defense.

While, Ripple in a response to the SEC’s “sur-sur-reply” has said that ‘it nominally addresses Ripple’s sur-reply, which pointed out the flaws in the SEC’s attempt to introduce in its reply brief a list of enforcement actions as evidence supposedly bearing on Ripple’s fair notice defense. Instead, the SEC attempts to introduce a new – and irrelevant – argument based on a recently decided case. A “sur-sur-reply ” is not the place for new material.’

Is this SEC’s tactic to delay the case?

The SEC’s supposed “sur-sur-reply” is everything that the agency can do to further delay the outcomes of this lawsuit, As it is expected that Judge Torres will probably allow it which will eventually allow Ripple to respond to this. This move will easily push back the result of the case by 2-3 weeks approximately.

The case that SEC has mentioned in its Sur-sur-reply is regarding the LBRY case is in New Hampshire, which is in the 1st Circuit while SEC vs Ripple case is in New York which is 2nd. This is totally out-of-circuit sister district court that J. Torres is even less obligated to consider than a fellow district in the same circuit.

Interestingly, there is a big difference between “selective enforcement” defense and “fair notice” defense. This is going to be the first thing that Ripple will argue. However, LBRY did plead a fair notice defense in the case while the commission did not move to strike. Surprisingly, LBRY is being represented by Perkins Coie.

As per reports, the facts of what LBRY did compare to Ripple are completely different. Even the judge stated that LBRY wasn’t able to defend that why SEC’s other enforcement actions can be discounted.

This is surely an old tactic from the books to delay the proceeding in the case to dig out new evidence or to buy some time to bring something sensible to the table. SEC has already been alleged over its biased regulations and this Sur-sur-reply is another step to stretch this case.